VINAYAKRISHNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P7 order, which is passed in conclusion of a proceeding for impounding, initiated on Exhibit P2 deed being presented for registration. The question raised is, as to what is the stamp duty leviable on Exhibit P2 deed; whether it be under Article 43(b) as a "dissolution of partnership deed" or under Article 48(b) as a "release deed", as per the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1959 (Kerala) [for brevity "Stamp Act"]. The petitioner entered into a partnership on 06.05.2005, as is evidenced by Exhibit PI. The partnership was formed with four other individuals and the same was to carry on a business in the name and style "TULSI BUILDERS". The capital brought in by each of the five partners as also the share of profit and loss of the business is evident at Exhibit PL Exhibit PI deed was not registered. Subsequently, a dissolution is said to have been effected by Exhibit P2. The petitioner paid Rs. 70.50 lakhs to the other partners and obtained exclusive right to carry on the business and also the rights over the assets and liabilities of the business. The deed evidencing such transaction, evidenced at Exhibit P2, was styled as one effecting dissolution of the partnership and presented for registration, stamped with Rs. 250/- and paying registration fee of Rs. 1,41,000/-.

(2.) The Sub Registrar impounded the document and forwarded it to the District Collector, who is the District Registrar, for further action under S. 37(2) of the Stamp Act. The District Registrar passed Exhibit P4 order, which was challenged inter alia on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court found that Exhibit P4 was a consequential order passed on a reference under S. 54(2) of the Act, being answered against the petitioner. The 1st respondent herein, who was the 3rd respondent there, answered the reference under S. 54(2). On the ground of no notice having been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity for hearing afforded to him, this Court by Exhibit P6 judgment set aside the order and directed reconsideration. The Land Revenue Commissioner was directed to issue notice to the petitioner and answer the reference made under S. 54(2) of the Stamp Act. That order on re-consideration, evidenced at Exhibit P7, is impugned herein.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the dissolution of partnership made as per Exhibit P2 would not attract the stamp duty under Article 48(b) and would attract stamp duty only under Article 43(b). The learned counsel would also rely on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Secretary, Board of Revenue v. Sankaranarayana Reddiar & Ors., 1981 KerLT 586 and a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Balbir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2012 AIR(All) 113. As already stated, the short question to be considered is as to whether the deed at Exhibit P2 ought to be treated as a "dissolution" or a "release".